Hello, since everyone is switching their PC's from x32 to x64bit systems to make use of more than 4Gb Ram even if they do not use 64bit programs.

The problem is that Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM, the 32bit engine is year 2007, and there is no x64bit version ever since. I mean standalone engline.

Should I remind you that like with video codecs you must install both versions for x32bit apps and for x64bit since the older applications cant see x64 and vice versa. Not the case with Adobe their x32bit CMM cant be installed at all.

The problem is that Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM....So I ask again Why Adobe forgot to make x64bit Adobe ACE CMM?

They didn't forget, they took a close look and decided it wasn't worth the investment since the OS CMMs are sufficient. The only notable drawback that has drawn some complaints is that Canon's iPF printing plug-in that relies upon the Adobe CMM for BPC with the RelCol intent. In that instance, one could argue that it's Canon responsibility (not Adobe's) to offer an alternative for it's customers.

There are many applications that support third party CMM selection, all of them or most are 32bit. If a user want to use new Photoshop 64bit or other software 64bit to be able to use more RAM he must upgrade his OS.

After upgrade the user finds out that his brand new Photoshop CS6 works wonders but his occasionally used CorelDraw X5 does not see ACE engine because he can't even install it on the OS. In my case the user dumped x64bit and uses x32bit OS, removed and sold his RAM on ebay.

When time comes and finally developers of LCMS make usable module standalone color engine for Windows perhaps then the poor user will buy new 64bit PC and use LCMS for adobe, corel, you name it.

The thing is: you must use same engine if you want color stability.Using same engine like Microsoft that is available for x64bit systems is not a solution even if you will use it in both Photoshop and other applications. That is because you will distort the images that you get from MAC and other users using Adobe ACE, did I mention Linux.

After OS upgrade the user finds out that his brand new Photoshop CS6 works wonders but his occasionally used CorelDraw X5 does not see ACE engine because he can't even install it on the OS. The thing is: you must use same engine if you want color stability.

Right, so why not use the OS CMM? Almost everyone's CMM's are based on the same Heidelberg engine and have been updated with BPC for RelCol.

Using same engine like Microsoft that is available for x64bit systems is not a solution even if you will use it in both Photoshop and other applications. That is because you will distort the images that you get from MAC and other users using Adobe ACE, did I mention Linux.

Do some testing again with these modern CMMs and let us know if you're seeing meaningful differences. Of course, It's hard to consider Linux a serious platform for digital imaging. And if you're in a critical color environment (like press proofing) then you're probably using a RIP to manage color to much tighter tolerances right?

Unless there's a bug in the CMM, and I haven't seen one in ages, the differences between them should be tiny.

IF CorelDraw X5 does not see the ACE engine presumably because it isn't able to support that old CMM, maybe they should pay to upgrade it. As I said, Adobe's updated all their host applications to support 64-bit.

As I said, Adobe's updated all their host applications to support 64-bit.

But let's be clear about this. Adobe apps are 64 bit, but there isn't a standalone 64-bit CMM installer that would allow 64bit non-Adobe applications to use Adobe's CMM. 64 bit non-Adobe applications must now use another CMM like the OS CMM. And for almost all applications, that works fine.

Adobe's homegrown BPC for RelCol code was the primary reason so many developers liked to use the Adobe CMM. Now that Adobe has made their BPC for RelCol code available for anyone to use, developers have the freedom to use it as they like with whatever non-Adobe CMM they like, and essentially get the same results.

But let's be clear about this. Adobe apps are 64 bit, but there isn't a standalone 64-bit CMM installer that would allow 64bit non-Adobe applications to use Adobe's CMM. 64 bit non-Adobe applications must now use another CMM like the OS CMM.

And that really isn't Adobe's headache. It was nice of them to release a stand alone 32 bit CMM (for whatever purposes at the time). Now, not so much (if at all).

What would be somewhat useful is if non Adobe CMM's that don't support BPC would. But I don't think even ColorThink Pro does so I'm not holding my breath.

And that really isn't Adobe's headache. It was nice of them to release a stand alone 32 bit CMM (for whatever purposes at the time). Now, not so much (if at all).

Well that is very strange if it's not adobe problem. Because like I said to be sure your color is converted precisely you need to use same cmm everywhere in your workflow. How can it be done when there is not 64bit CMM?

Remeber IQueue, there are other color servers that can be used to manipulate color, most of the time they support selecting CMM. Do you know how bad is kodak CMM? So peopple would be very happy to use even IQueue to make color space conversions on dedicated PC. But why that PC needs to be outdated because someone in adobe never bothered to release same code but x64bit OS?

I also said it before and I still think that the way adobe removed "no color management" from their applications is an insult for a user that buys their products, because everyone I know uses like pirated portable CS4 to print their test targets. Why?Because the adobe target print utility is a joke, even if you set margins like the same for all directions it still prints in top left corner no matter what, there is no orientation, no positioning nothing. What stopped adobe for porting the "photoshop print preview" dialog to a standalone utility is beyond my understanding.

Well that is very strange if it's not adobe problem. Because like I said to be sure your color is converted precisely you need to use same cmm everywhere in your workflow. How can it be done when there is not 64bit CMM?

How is it their problem? All their modern applications that utilize their CMM are 64-bit. When all their older applications needed a 32-bit CMM, it was there. They provided a standalone CMM, in 32-bit, pretty much out of the goodness of their heart. Why else would they need a standalone CMM when their applications that need a CMM have one built in? If you want to use their CMM, today or using Photoshop 5 circa 1998, you'll get the same results.

Quote

Remeber IQueue, there are other color servers that can be used to manipulate color, most of the time they support selecting CMM. Do you know how bad is kodak CMM?

No, I don't honestly remember there being a problem. But if so, they should have fixed it.

Quote

I also said it before and I still think that the way adobe removed "no color management" from their applications is an insult for a user that buys their products, because everyone I know uses like pirated portable CS4 to print their test targets. Why?

Why? Because short of printing targets for a profile, something the profile maker should provide, there is no reason to have a No Color Management setting in the Print dialog in Photoshop (or Lightroom, or InDesign etc).

Quote

Because the adobe target print utility is a joke, even if you set margins like the same for all directions it still prints in top left corner no matter what, there is no orientation, no positioning nothing.

Adobe had no reason to provide the utility. They did, that was nice of them. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you have to print something without color management, presumably a color target, where did that target come from? Why didn't the application that makes and needs to measure that target not provide a No CMS print path? Why is it only Photoshop has to have this provision? Answer: They don't and they shouldn't.

IF you've got some non Adobe application, running 64-bit that needs a CMM, why does it have to be Adobe's and why doesn't that company build their own (or pay Adobe for a CMM)? How is this Adobe's problem?

How is it their problem? All their modern applications that utilize their CMM are 64-bit. When all their older applications needed a 32-bit CMM, it was there. They provided a standalone CMM, in 32-bit, pretty much out of the goodness of their heart. Why else would they need a standalone CMM when their applications that need a CMM have one built in? If you want to use their CMM, today or using Photoshop 5 circa 1998, you'll get the same results.

Because a big company like adobe should understand that other software exist in the typical modern workflow and the only way colors can be managed right if along the way the same CMM is used. Adobe should be grateful that other software makers make an option to choose a CMM in the first place.

Keep in mind converting applications from x32bit to x64bit is a simple process, and they allready use 64bit CMM in their applications so this not needed, it simply needs to be made available as standalone. It this too much to ask?

What does adobe loose in making 64bit ACE CMM as standalone engine??

Quote

No, I don't honestly remember there being a problem. But if so, they should have fixed it.

It's like saying kodak should fix their film to match fuji or vice versa. There is a reason why choosing CMM is made available in software, if it's not available then it's not professional software.

Quote

Why? Because short of printing targets for a profile, something the profile maker should provide, there is no reason to have a No Color Management setting in the Print dialog in Photoshop (or Lightroom, or InDesign etc).

Profile maker should provide software to print the targets? Now thats new. Given the fact that every software prints differently, and adobe is closed source how can profile maker make software that prints like adobe?

Quote

Adobe had no reason to provide the utility. They did, that was nice of them. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you have to print something without color management, presumably a color target, where did that target come from? Why didn't the application that makes and needs to measure that target not provide a No CMS print path? Why is it only Photoshop has to have this provision? Answer: They don't and they shouldn't.

If I use RIP, I print with it. If I use adobe I would like to print with it, with same exact image printing controls like in print preview window, why should I use some utility that is piece of crap? Porting Print preview to separate utility was a chore for them i guess, but removing the features from all applications wasn't?

Remember the path of printing without color management was always available, adobe should not have removed it then they really should not bother about print utilities or making the feature available again.

Quote

IF you've got some non Adobe application, running 64-bit that needs a CMM, why does it have to be Adobe's and why doesn't that company build their own (or pay Adobe for a CMM)? How is this Adobe's problem?

I thought adobe was concerned that color reproduction would be right from input to output, since users need to work with other software that is possible by selecting same CMM in every program they use."

In other words, make a corel draw x5 and photoshop CS5 display same colors in 64bit WIN7 PC from a picture made on a MAC in photoshop? And I'll eat my words, that selecting same CMM is made for just being there.

Because a big company like adobe should understand that other software exist in the typical modern workflow and the only way colors can be managed right if along the way the same CMM is used. Adobe should be grateful that other software makers make an option to choose a CMM in the first place.

How so? How would this aid in their bottom line?

Quote

Keep in mind converting applications from x32bit to x64bit is a simple process, and they allready use 64bit CMM in their applications so this not needed, it simply needs to be made available as standalone. It this too much to ask?

If it's simple, anyone would/could do it. And yes, it's too much to ask. You want an Adobe CMM, use an Adobe product. You want PV2012, well you better be using an Adobe raw converter.

Quote

What does adobe loose in making 64bit ACE CMM as standalone engine??

Time, money, tech support calls, documentation, uploading etc.

Quote

It's like saying kodak should fix their film to match fuji or vice versa. There is a reason why choosing CMM is made available in software, if it's not available then it's not professional software.

Once again, please read what Scott and I have written: Unless you find a bug in a CMM, the differences between them should be tiny. You know the differences between say the Apple CMM and the Adobe CMM in dE?

Quote

Profile maker should provide software to print the targets?

Yes, since that's a requirement of their method of printing to build a profile. No one else needs that.

Quote

If I use RIP, I print with it. If I use adobe I would like to print with it, with same exact image printing controls like in print preview window, why should I use some utility that is piece of crap?

Begging the question, why are you using a RIP if you expect it and say Photoshop to provide identical output?

Quote

Porting Print preview to separate utility was a chore for them i guess, but removing the features from all applications wasn't?

In terms of the loss of tech support calls, yes indeed. It was why it was removed. Few people need it, many who don't know better accessed it, then had problems. It was smart to yank it out.

Quote

I thought adobe was concerned that color reproduction would be right from input to output, since users need to work with other software that is possible by selecting same CMM in every program they use."

It should be and if not, ask the other party why they don't produce the same results.

Get over the fact that No CM is gone from Photoshop and isn't coming back. If you need to print this way, find another way. If you really want a 64-bit CMM from Adobe, solely to use in non Adobe products, take up a collection and try to get Adobe to build it, or more rationally, ask all those 3rd party companies who don't have a 64-bit Adobe CMM to pony up and pay for it. Or just continue to bitch and moan at Adobe which will solve nothing because really, it isn't their problem. They probably shouldn’t have been so generous in providing the 32-bit CMM in the first place, it only serves to spoil people into thinking they deserve freebie’s forever.

IF a 64-bit Adobe CMM is so utterly important to you, how much would you pay for it?

Profile maker should provide software to print the targets? Now thats new. Given the fact that every software prints differently, and adobe is closed source how can profile maker make software that prints like adobe?

Not sure you understand the OS print pipeline...but in the case of Mac, changes made by Apple in the 10.6.x time frame (not sure exactly when it hit) made it impossible for the then current Photoshop (CS4) to send intentionally unmanaged date through ColorSync. ColorSync would tag the data as "generic RGB" and targets would not be correctly printed. The only work around which worked in CS4 but not CS6 was to arbitrarily tag the data as something (Adobe RGB) and send the image from Photoshop using the Adobe RGB profile as the output profile (written about HERE).

BTW, your contention that different software prints differently is kinda wrong. The whole purpose of output profiles is to ensure different software CAN print the same output. Whether or not Photoshop, Profile Maker (or more recently i1 Profiler) or the Adobe Printer Utility prints the target, the result SHOULD be the same...except in recent versions of Photoshop, No Color Management has been removed because the hacks that the Photoshop engineers had to go through to actually have it work kept breaking because of OS and driver changes.

Personally, I WOULD expect the software I'm making a profile in to be able to properly output a target and not have to rely on Photoshop to do so.

And yes, Windows users kinda got screwed by the draconian changes forced on the Mac OS print pipeline. Adobe, in the attempt at keeping as much cross platform constancy, removed the No Color Management for Windows users–even though Photoshop for Windows could have kept it in.

Personally, I think it was a mistake on Adobe's part even releasing a stand alone Adobe ACE CMM...ACE is proprietary and should have been kept internal to Adobe apps. Allowing others to leverage Thomas Knoll's work (he did ACE) for free was misguided...and don't hold your breath for a 64-bit version to happen.

And yes, Windows users kinda got screwed by the draconian changes forced on the Mac OS print pipeline. Adobe, in the attempt at keeping as much cross platform constancy, removed the No Color Management for Windows users–even though Photoshop for Windows could have kept it in.

Not quite. Windows is also abandoning their technology that allowed "No Color Management" to work. Apple ditching Quickdraw is again a case of Apple leading the way - in bleeding edge fashion.

Adobe's senior engineer on printing: "I can't provide one [a solution for printing targets], because Apple already has, and Microsoft is, cutting off the support in the OS for passing unmanaged color data to a printer." He explained to me that it's the OS's responsibility, not the application developers, to provide a No Color Management option. If the OS doesn't allow for this, then no application (Photoshop or not even the profile making software) can provide it! Even XRite, Datacolor etc are in trouble here! Apple and Microsoft used to provide a solid solution for OS driver level target printing (Quickdraw and GDI), but since Adobe new these technologies would be depreciated they have removed the "No Color Management" option so that people won't blame Adobe when it doesn't work!

To make matters worse, the OSes are almost certain to break Null Transform tricks in the near future, so Adobe has removed that possibility as well.

All of this has to do with transitioning to 64 bit modern code. Quickdraw and GDI were 32 bit structures that had to go. This has been a painful transition for us color geeks. But let's not blame Adobe. They've actually done a great job educating Apple and Microsoft on the importance of a No Color Management path. They tell me that Apple has been listening and making improvements while Microsoft has been much tricker for them to deal with.

Anyway, I wish Adobe would release a letter to the color community explaining all of this stuff... We're all just frustrated, innocent bystanders pointing the finger at the wrong people!

To make matters worse, the OSes are almost certain to break Null Transform tricks in the near future, so Adobe has removed that possibility as well.

The one Adobe engineer I talked to said the Null trick should be avoided, it's not reliable any more.

Quote

But let's not blame Adobe.

Now that's no fun (for some) <g>

Based on a recent bad experience with Keynote in terms of color management, and communications with Apple, I have no faith this company gives a poop about color management any more. Just not on their radar.